SA, R (on the application of) v Pembrokeshire County Council [2026] EWHC 2063 (Admin)
[1]Pursuant to CPR r. 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:(i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as SA.[2]Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.[3]Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):(i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR r. 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.[4]Any person wishing to vary or discharge paragraphs 1, 2 or 3 of this Order must make an application, served on each party.Extension of time
[5]The time for the Defendant to file its acknowledgment of service claim form be extended to the date it was filed.[6]The order in paragraph 5 of this Order has been made without a hearing and without receiving representations from the Claimant. The Claimant has the right to apply for paragraph 5 to be suspended or set aside. Any such application must be made within 7 days of service of this Order. Reasons (1). The claimant is an asylum seeker, who claims to have been a child at the time of his application and whose personal circumstances are intimately involved in the proceedings. His interest in having his identity protected outweighs the interest in publication, as all relevant details of the facts, the issues and the reasons for any determination will remain public and all hearings will be in public. (2). The breach of the rules in respect of filing of the acknowledgment of service was serious and substantial. The courts have repeatedly emphasised the need for procedural rigor in this jurisdiction. Further, the defendant has no good reason or explanation for the failure to comply with the rules. In this particular case, I consider that the interests of justice and of the efficient management of the case justify the extension of time sought, though it is a close-run thing. First, the Summary Grounds of Defence do not materially enlarge the matters to be considered at the permission stage and do at least assist focus attention on some of them. Second, though not of overriding importance, I bear in mind that the claim was filed on the very last day of the 3-month longstop period and that it is at least questionable whether the claim has been brought promptly. Third, in a case of this nature the grant of permission would involve the transfer of the proceedings to the Upper Tribunal and a full fact-finding hearing there; and I am reluctant to let a decision that would have those consequences for the Upper Tribunal and the public purse be taken without consideration of all available representations. Date: 16 July 2026